Case Reports

Cardo Systems, Ltd. v Shenzhen Asmax Infinite Technology Co., Ltd. and Hong Kong Yiheng International Technology Co. Limited (UPC_CFI_643/2024 relating to EP4240194) Order of 5 November 2024...

G. Pohl-Boskamp GmbH & C. KG v pharma-aktiva GmbH and others UPC_CFI_541/2024 Order of 20 December 2024 (ORD_67522/2024) The claimant G. Pohl-Boskamp GmbH & C.

Nanostring v 10x Genomics UPC_CoA_470/2023 Order of 10 December 2024 (ORD_598533/2023) As we previously reported, the Munich Local Division of the UPC imposed a penalty payment against Nanostring for...

Koninklijke Philips N.V. ("Philips") v Belkin International, Inc., Belkin GMBH and Belkin Limited (collectively "Belkin") - UPC_CFI_390/2023 relating to EP 2867997 B1 Order of 18 December 2024 -...

Valeo v Magna (UPC_CFI_368/2024 relating to EP3320604 and UPC_CFI_347/2024 relating to EP3320602) Orders of 31 October 2024 (ORD_56534/2024[1] and ORD_56545/2024[2]) Valeo Electrification sought...

KINEXON SPORTS & MEDIA GMBH vs BALLINNO B.V. (UPC_CFI_230/2024, Revocation Action No. ACT_27358/2024) Order of the CFI of the UPC Paris Central Division dated 14 October 2024 (ORD_47273/2024)[1] The...

SodaStream Industries Ltd. v Aarke AB (UPC_CFI_373/2023) Decision of 31 October 2024 (ORD_598499/2023) [1] concerning EP 1 793 917 Sodastream (in the following "Claimant") and Aarke (in the following...

NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (UPC 252/2023) Decision of 17 October, 2024 (ORD_598480/2023[1]) This decision from the Central Division in Munich...

Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Belkin GmbH, Belkin Limited, Belkin International, Inc. (UPC_CFI_390/2023) Decision of 13 September 2024 (ORD_598464/2023)[1] Philips asserted their patent EP 2867997[2],...

NEC Corporation v TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd. & Others (UPC_CFI_153/2024) Order dated 2 October 2024 (ORD_46842/2024)[1] NEC Corporation ("NEC") sued seven companies within the TCL...

Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v Asustek Computer Inc, Arvato Netherlands B.V., Digital River Ireland Ltd. (UPC_CFI_317/2024) Decision of 15 October 2024 (ORD_52116/2024[1]) This judgment relates to...

Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v Microsoft Corporation (UPC_CFI_164/2024) Order of 16 September 2024 (ORD_41174/2024)[1] This decision of the Paris Central Division of the UPC arose in...

Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft v ITCiCo Spain S.L. (UPC_CFI_412/2023) Order dated 16 September 2024 (ORD_51965/2024) concerning EP 2 796 333 The patent in suit EP 2 796 333 relates to...

Mammut vs Ortovox Court of Appeal Luxembourg Order of 25 September 2024 [1] UPC_CoA_182/2024, APL_21143/2024 Introduction In its order dated 09 April 2024, the Düsseldorf Local Division reviewed the...

Koninklijke Philips N.V. v Shenzhen Yunding Information Co., Ltd. (UPC_CFI_516/2024) ORD_50890/2024 dated 9 September 2024 concerning EP 3 197 316 After visiting trade fair IFA 2024, which started on...

In Omnipharm Limited v Merial [2013] EWCA Civ 2, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales (CA) upheld a first instance decision to revoke one of Merial’s patents on grounds of insufficiency.

Darren Smyth’s latest IPKat post concerns the recent decision on a preliminary point in Resolution Chemicals Ltd v H. Lundbeck A/S, and Lundbeck’s SPC for escitalopram.

At a recent conference in Alicante to mark the tenth anniversary of the EU Registered Community Design, it was proposed by attendee Sir Robin Jacob to look at ways of improving the system.

The Intellectual Property Office (IPO) has launched a public consultation on their plans for a simplified and more cost-effective trademark opposition procedure to run alongside the existing system.

In his capacity as regular blogger for The IPKat, Partner Darren Smyth has posted on the use of dotted lines in representations of designs. This follows his participation in the conference this week...

In Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc v Genentech Inc [2013] EWCA Civ 93 the Court of Appeal dismissed the claimants’ appeal, rejecting all their arguments in respect of construction, infringement,...

AP Racing Limited v Alcon Components Limited [2013] EWPCC 3Two rival suppliers of brake calipers used in racing cars in the motorsport industry recently went head to head in the Patents County Courts.

Environmental Recycling Technologies Plc v Upcycle Holdings Ltd [2013] EWPCC 4 – 5 February 2013.SummaryThis decision of the UK Patents County Court provides insight into the differences between UK...

This case ([2013] EWPCC 2), heard in the Patents County Court, concerns designs for electric shower units. Mira (the claimant) alleged that the Glee, Joy and Smile products, supplied by the defendant...

Over the past few months two actions concerning the validity and infringement of IPCom’s European Patent EP 1,841,268 (IPCom v Nokia (Claim No: HC 10 C01233) and HTC v IPCom (Claim HC 11 C02064))...

In October 2008 a factually complex trade mark infringement and passing off case, involving the interpretation of agreements under Italian Law, came before Mr Justice Arnold (Hotel Cipriani SRL & Ors...

Leno Merken BV v Hagelkruis Beheer BV (ONEL / OMEL)A test case cooked up by Benelux attorneys called into question one of the central tenets of the CTM system - that use of a CTM in just one member...

Partner Darren Smyth has made his first blog post for The IPKat following the announcement that he had become a full member of The IPKat team.

The applicability of the obvious to try question has been a thorny issue in UK patent law for some time, and the desire for a party seeking invalidity to apply this test has pervaded many recent...

(1) J.W. Spear & Sons Ltd (2) Mattel, Inc. & (3) Mattel UK Limited -and- ZYNGA, Inc. [2012] EWHC 3345 (Ch) – 28 November 2012.Arnold J’s summary dismissal of an infringement claim based on a UK trade...